For all you computer people, I have a question.

[Danceman231]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

Never say that again.

can i say it if you're not looking...

[JAMM17]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

THis is just all personal preference by what I'm reading, so just going by that I'm going to say AMD, reason being: when you buy an AMD procesesor at 2.0 ghz, in intel terms that's 2.6 ghz, because AMD processors are sold at the speed that you're able to use. A computer needs a certain amount of the processor to run at all times, and AMD speed is given to the consumer with that minused from it.

[Unknownfluke]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

I've had bad experiences with AMD in the past (note: unreliable and unstable) and I refuse to buy a computer with an AMD chipset.

Hmm... This is the exact thing i would have said but in the reverse. I enjoy AMD greatly. Of course I am still running on a 2200 Socket A chip that is really only good for running WoW.

I used to be in the know when it came to computers and sadly that is no longer the case. I really had to be as I worked in retail and actually tried to give my customers intelligent advice about the computers they were buying. I.E. "Please for the love of all that is holy do not buy that eMachine it will eat your babies."

Anyways, that was a bunch of rambling. Right now I am not so much in the know. I know nothing if the dual cores and had not heard of quad cores until just now reading these posts.

I guess my threadjacking question is: Is AMD still considered the "gaming processor" it was a few years ago when I got mine? Or is it better to go with Intel. It just seems so weird to me to think that Intel might actually be useful for something other than micro-computing in the actual OS.

Also, anything relating to what the OP said would be nice as i am looking to overhaul my computer here in the next 6 months and I would like some idea.

I use it mostly for gaming and surfing the net. Right now I have an AMD 2200 Socket A with a Radeon 9000 series video card. 1gb of older ram, and a 24x dvd rom.

So, pretty lame setup. I am going to need some advice on new processors and MB combos. The RAM I should be ok with matching unless there has been some major developement in the world of Random Access Memory.

Thanks in advance. I know this is a bad first post and I'm sorry for Threadjacking this post. If the powers that be wish to delete it go ahead.

[nforcer06164]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

Well, first off, you need to find someone that offers XP instead of Vista....

[OrganisM]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

So, pretty lame setup. I am going to need some advice on new processors and MB combos. The RAM I should be ok with matching unless there has been some major developement in the world of Random Access Memory.

At this point I'd reccomend basically building a new computer. If you're going low end you can get a CPU-motherboard combo with reasonable expandability for really cheap. The problem with your setup is that you still have socket A, which doesn't support all the new AMDs, you probably have an ancient chipset, and your card is a very old one still running off your PCI bus.

The main thing I'd recommend is getting a motherboard that's not too expensive yet supports expandability. That's the major issue. There are $50 and $100 mobo's that support quad cores and have nvidia chipsets. If you have the dough, upgrade to something with a little more expandability. After that, get a PCI-E card that will get the job done until you can get a more powerful one (or pick one up that you're sure you'll be able to get again, so that you can SLI them). And if your RAM's that old, I'm sure it's not even DDR2.

The problem with that old motherboard is that you really can't put anything new in it, and I'm sure it doesn't even support SATA, which is an issue in performance when you're running something like a game.

As for AMD vs. Intel, see how the releases of chipsets and processors pan out in the next few months. The market's very much in a transitional period right now (always is, but now it's especially the case). Intel's planning on shrinking their processors from the current 65nm standard to far smaller in the next few years, and AMD's all set to release their quad cores. Hard to say what apps will support what. So, all in all, wait until you're ready to buy, and see which price is right.

On July 22nd, as I've said, you'll be able to pick up a 2.4ghz quad core from Intel for cheap. And as I've heard, AMD's also releasing their line.

The best way to say it is, look for yourself. There are so many developments so often that if you're planning on building yourself a PC or even buying one, you owe it to yourself.

[OrganisM]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

Sorry to double post, but I thought this little article merits it:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=382

AMD Quad FX raped by Intel Quad Core.

Note that the AMD Quad FX setup consists of two dual-core 3.0ghz processors, and the Intel setup is with one QX6700 2.66ghz quad core.

[Nightfirecat]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

Wow-- at this rate, this is gonna be moved to the ct thread...

Anyway-- if there are any other questions that people would like me to put up in the first post, just tell me about them and if they seem reasonable questions, then I will keep the conversation going.

[OrganisM]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

there isn't any conversation to be had. If you want discussion, you should've given a range of specific topics. Whenever somebody posts a "What is the meaning of life?" topic, it never causes interesting or useful discussion.

And if you just had a simple question, I believe the question is resolved.

[Trumpetman4eva]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

That's an insanely idiotic question to ask by itself. You've got to say what you're using the computer for and what your price range is.

The AMD quad cores aren't even out yet. They aren't due to release until mid-2007, which is within the next couple months. And if you're thinking of the AMD Quad FX, that's two seperate dual-core processors running in sync with HyperTransport. So I have no idea what the hell you're thinking. And if you can't explain why one is faster than the other, go research it or don't bother to post.

For a cheaper PC made for home use, I'd recommend an AMD processor at the moment. But on July 22nd, Intel's releasing their new QX6800 and QX 6850, which are 2.93 and 3.00 ghz, respectively, and dropping the Q6600 to around $260 (if I remember correctly). This means that for maybe $50 more than the AMD dual core 2.8ghz I put in a client's PC, you're getting a 2.4ghz quad core. and while it isn't all that overclockable and most games don't support a dual/quad-core architecture yet, it's mighty useful when running multiple applications at the same time.

Everything anyone says could change every other month when something is released. They're two powerful companies vying for domination, and so each of them is going to continuously pump out better and more competitive products. What that means for you, is instead of being one corporation's bitch, you can pick the best deals from both sides.

I've actually read that some Dual-Cores are faster than the Quads. Forget where that was though, I think PC World.

[Squeek]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

Honestly, who cares.

Don't things process fast enough for you without 120938902138 cores on your processor? I've had the same P4 processor for three years now and I've never had a problem with slow speeds.

Seriously, you guys are acting like the HD crowd. ZOMG I CAN SEE THE WHITE SPECKS ON HIS HAT HD IS AWESOME!

Zomg! I'd rather not sacrifice hundreds / thousands of dollars to see white specks! DVDs are plenty fine!

Stick with a Dual-Core. It's the fastest you'll ever need.

[dascookieman]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

yeah that's what i tried to say too

[tsugomaru]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

For the pricing Intel is better. Both AMD and Intel are reliable, I currently own an AMD CPU because I wanted to see what it's like. You can't really tell the difference.

~Tsugomaru

[jewpinthethird]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

For the record: my windows machine is AMD and my windows machine ain't working.

[OrganisM]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

You all have just committed an EPIC FAIL.

First, AMD is a fraction of the size of Intel. Stop comparing them.

Second, even though you can't tell the difference when you're watching scat porn on Windows media player using your P4 versus using anything else, there is quite a difference when using higher-end applications. I'm getting into music production, and I'm a gamer. For both of those needs, it's best to get a better performing system. And your system probably isn't even upgradeable to run much of anything anymore. A mobo that supports P4's socket type probably runs off of old PCI-bus video cards, so you'd be lucky to be doing anything other than playing DVDs low-res using WMP.

@ tsugomaru: What price range are you talking about? There are different price ranges, which are better covered by one company than the other. In addition, are the CPUs you're comparing even comparable in clockspeeds/performance?

@squeek: there are those of us who are videophiles, and aren't obnoxious. I love image quality, and have a 56" 1080p HD. And on that screen, **** yes, you can tell the difference between a DVD and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

I do, however, have much disdain for those who want to buy something faster just because it has bigger numbers on it. There are many people who do this. But at the same time, it's stupid to knock those who actually need better performance than a late 1990's Fudge Packard.

For those who can't appreciate technology as it is, who have disdain for higher-quality formats simply because they're expensive, stop being ignorant and learn a bit about what you're talking about.

If you think there's little or no practical performance gain using an Intel QX6700 vs an old Pentium 4 and ****ty mobo, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and shouldn't even bother speaking on the matter, lest you insult those who do actually care enough to research it.

I don't ask everybody to be a computer geek, but I do expect you all (how absurd of me) to at least sit down with google for 5 minutes before you start throwing downright ignorant and stupid comments around.




Oh, and Squeek, in the mid 80's, Bill Gates posed an infamous question: Why would anybody need more than 640k?

Well, now we know.

[Squeek]

Re: For all you computer people, I have a question.

Second, even though you can't tell the difference when you're watching scat porn on Windows media player using your P4 versus using anything else, there is quite a difference when using higher-end applications. I'm getting into music production, and I'm a gamer. For both of those needs, it's best to get a better performing system. And your system probably isn't even upgradeable to run much of anything anymore. A mobo that supports P4's socket type probably runs off of old PCI-bus video cards, so you'd be lucky to be doing anything other than playing DVDs low-res using WMP.

Oops PCIe x16

Oops I'm a gamer too and I can still run all of my games in full-quality without any lag. This includes Half-Life 2 and its mods among many others.

@squeek: there are those of us who are videophiles, and aren't obnoxious. I love image quality, and have a 56" 1080p HD. And on that screen, **** yes, you can tell the difference between a DVD and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

And you spent how much on it? 10,000? I spent a grand on my computer and have yet to notice a lack of quality in my movies. Our TV is 32" and about ten years old with a cheap $20 DVD player hooked up to it. We don't even have a fiber-op out on the thing. And it's still top-notch quality. We paid maybe $500 for the whole thing. Heck we don't even have a flat screen in the house, let alone a flat panel. None of our TVs are HD.

I do, however, have much disdain for those who want to buy something faster just because it has bigger numbers on it. There are many people who do this. But at the same time, it's stupid to knock those who actually need better performance than a late 1990's Fudge Packard.

Finally something we agree on.

For those who can't appreciate technology as it is, who have disdain for higher-quality formats simply because they're expensive, stop being ignorant and learn a bit about what you're talking about.

Oops I'm a Network Administrator with 8 years experience.

If you think there's little or no practical performance gain using an Intel QX6700 vs an old Pentium 4 and ****ty mobo, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and shouldn't even bother speaking on the matter, lest you insult those who do actually care enough to research it.

I'm talking general use, buddy. Most people AREN'T gamers. Most people DON'T do video editing or movie splicing. Most people WON'T notice a difference.

I ALWAYS speak for the majority when I talk about people.